PT113.S4.Q17 > Analytics

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that a speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities. This is based on the fact that a year ago, the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since that reduction, there have been fewer highway deaths than there were in the previous year.

The author assumes that the reduction in highway speed limit caused the decrease in highway fatalities. This overlooks the possibility that there are other explanations for the decrease in highway fatalities in the year following the speed limit reduction.

The negation of (A) doesn’t undermine the argument. If traffic has increased over the past year, that might strengthen the argument, because we’d expect to see more fatalities. Since the negation doesn’t hurt the argument, the author doesn’t have to assume (A).

The author doesn’t have to assume that most drivers obeyed the speed limit, because a speed limit reduction can still affect driving behavior even if most people don’t follow the speed limit. For example, the new limit can cause people to drive slower.

The author’s conclusion concerns the number of highway deaths. This doesn’t commit the author to any belief about the number of accidents, which is different from the number of deaths.

If anything, the author assumes that the new speed limit was not more strictly enforced. More strict enforcement could have been an alternate explanation for the decline in fatalities. So the author assumes this didn’t happen, not that it did happen.

This must be assumed because if the number of fatalities the year before the new limit was abnormally high, then that suggests the decrease in fatalities after the speed limit might just be a coincidence. It might be a return to the normal fatality rate.

Question

34% of people who answer get this correct

This is a very difficult question.

CURVE

Score of students with a 50% chance of getting this right

25% 156

167

75% 178

Question Stem Tags

Flaw or descriptive weakening

Stimulus Tags

Causal reasoning

Popularity Avg. score

155

23%

159

27%

157

12%

154

34%

163

You don't have any history with this question.. yet!

PrepTest 113 - Section 4 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action